ADVERTISEMENT

The US invasion of Africa that nobody is talking about.....

HawktimusPrime

HB Legend
Mar 23, 2015
16,535
4,653
113
http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/04/15/the-uss-invasion-of-africa-that-nobody-knows-about/

The U.S. is assembling the rudiments of imperial infrastructure throughout Africa, and hardly anybody knows about it. Hardly anybody knows about it because the government and military refuse to divulge much of U.S. foreign policy towards Africa. You see, U.S. foreign policy is really none of our business.


The Obama administration has been slowly – and very quietly – peppering the U.S. military throughout the continent and putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of government contractors to build the necessary infrastructure for a permanent U.S. military presence.


Washington has been increasing its support for African regimes, many with records of human rights violations, and boosting efforts to train African militaries to keep them dependent on the Pentagon. The U.S. is training and equipping militaries in countries including Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia – not to mention operations in Libya, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, Djibouti, et al.


Reporter Nick Turse has been at the forefront of reporting on America’s gradual infiltration of Africa. He writes this week about, among other things, the difference between what military officials say about Africa policy when asked by reporters and what they tell U.S. contractors looking to do business for taxpayer money. To journalists, the Pentagon maintains that we’re hardly doing anything in Africa beyond “humanitarian assistance.” To the military industrial complex, they say America is “at war” in Africa and is looking for a “permanent footprint” throughout the continent.
 
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/us-military-bases-africa

They're involved in Algeria and Angola, Benin and Botswana, Burkina Faso and Burundi, Cameroon and the Cape Verde Islands. And that's just the ABCs of the situation. Skip to the end of the alphabet and the story remains the same: Senegal and the Seychelles, Togo and Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia. From north to south, east to west, the Horn of Africa to the Sahel, the heart of the continent to the islands off its coasts, the US military is at work. Base construction, security cooperation engagements, training exercises, advisory deployments, special operations missions, and a growing logistics network, all undeniable evidence of expansion—except at US Africa Command.


To hear AFRICOM tell it, US military involvement on the continent ranges from the miniscule to the microscopic. The command is adamant that it has only a single "military base" in all of Africa: Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. The head of the command insists that the US military maintains a "small footprint" on the continent. AFRICOM's chief spokesman has consistently minimized the scope of its operations and the number of facilities it maintains or shares with host nations, asserting that only "a small presence of personnel who conduct short-duration engagements" are operating from "several locations" on the continent at any given time.

ADVERTISING


With the war in Iraq over and the conflict in Afghanistan winding down, the US military is deploying its forces far beyond declared combat zones. In recent years, for example, Washington has very publicly proclaimed a "pivot to Asia," a "rebalancing" of its military resources eastward, without actually carrying out wholesale policy changes. Elsewhere, however, from the Middle East to South America, the Pentagon is increasingly engaged in shadowy operations whose details emerge piecemeal and are rarely examined in a comprehensive way. Nowhere is this truer than in Africa. To the media and the American people, officials insist the US military is engaged in small-scale, innocuous operations there. Out of public earshot, officers running America's secret wars say: "Africa is the battlefield of tomorrow, today."
 
Op-Ed
U.S. military intervention, done right, could boost African stability
Now is the time to reassess the long-standing American anathema to military involvement in Africa's terrible wars.
Democratic Republic of Congo MISCA peacekeepers soldiers patrol in street…

For decades, one golden rule has guided America's military involvement in Africa: Stay out.

Generally speaking, the reason was a sense that the strategic stakes did not justify the risk. When we deviated from this rule, we often learned lessons the hard way that seemed to reinforce its validity, as in Somalia in 1993. And while presidents often profess a stronger interest in Africa than their actions would imply, they tend to say such things when not in the White House — witness Bill Clinton calling the nonintervention in Rwanda's 1994 genocide his greatest regret as president, or Sen. Barack Obama calling for more assertiveness in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or DRC, and Sudan six to eight years ago.

But, in fact, now is the time to reassess this long-standing American anathema to military involvement in Africa's terrible wars.

At a time of national war fatigue and fiscal austerity, it may be counterintuitive to propose an increase in U.S. involvement — particularly military commitment — abroad. And given the problems that continue in Somalia, Kenya, Mali, Libya, Sudan, the DRC and Nigeria, Africa does not appear to be an area of opportunity. But, for a modest investment, the U.S. and other countries may be able to make major strides toward improving the prospects for peace and stability on the continent.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/16/opinion/la-oe-ohanlon-troops-to-africa-20140216
 
Always good to hear the latest from the tinfoil hat crowd!
Is that a chosen belief? Or are you simply stating that you are proclaiming a fact by ridicule? I would strongly recommend that anyone who is interested in foreign policy to pay attention to the point of this thread. There is certainly more than enough evidence and support for this.
 
Possible actions being taken in South Africa, against US interests.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/08/us-safrica-usa-security-idUSKCN0R81KQ20150908

The United States warned its citizens on Tuesday of a possible attack by "extremists" against U.S. facilities or interests in South Africa, a rare security alert in a stable democracy seldom associated with Islamist militancy.

In a statement on its website, the U.S. Embassy said it had no information about a specific target or timing, but advised Americans to review their personal security plans and maintain their vigilance.

In Washington, State Department spokesman John Kirby said he could not elaborate on what prompted the move. "The embassy had information indicating a potential terrorist threat and they acted on that," he said.


A spokeswoman for the police in Gauteng, the province that is home to both the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria and its consulate in Johannesburg, said she was unaware of the U.S. warning.


The embassy and consulates in Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town closed for several days in 2009 after what U.S. officials described as a "specific" threat to diplomatic missions in South Africa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemorialRedWarrior
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/w...-as-threats-grow-and-budgets-shrink.html?_r=0

DIFFA, Niger — Across Africa, affiliates of Al Qaeda and other Islamist militants are proving resilient and in some cases expanding their influence, from Nigeria to Libya to Somalia, Western and African counterterrorism officials say.

So it is not surprising that the authorities in this poor West African desert nation, which has emerged as a staunch ally of France and the United States in the fight against Islamist militancy, are nervously watching Boko Haram, a sect in neighboring Nigeria suspected of killing well over 400 civilians in the last five weeks alone, including children watching a soccer match over the weekend.

The group’s fighters have made a habit of quietly slipping across the border into Niger to rest, rearm and refit, officials say — a pipeline the nation is eager to shut down with the Pentagon’s help. But instead of launching American airstrikes or commando raids on militants, the latest joint mission between the nations involves something else entirely: American boxes of donated vitamins, prenatal medicines and mosquito netting to combat malaria.

With more than a decade of land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drawing to an end, the American military’s involvement in Niger illustrates how the Pentagon is trying to juggle two competing missions in Africa: contain the spread of Islamist militancy without having to pour a lot of soldiers or money into the region.
 
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/07/world/la-fg-usmil-africa-20140308

WASHINGTON — Amid a surge of Islamic militancy in North Africa, a team of fewer than 50 U.S. special operations troops with a single helicopter arrived at a remote base in western Tunisia last month.

Their mission: train Tunisian troops in counter-terrorism tactics.

The operation was one of dozens of U.S. military deployments in Africa over the last year, often to tiny and temporary outposts. The goal is to leverage American military expertise against an arc of growing instability in North Africa and many sub-Saharan countries, from Mali in the west to Somalia in the east.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeHitman
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rently-has-troops-in-these-african-countries/

President Obama's announcement that United States has deployed 80 troops to Chad came as a surprise to many. But as my colleague Craig Whitlock points out, the United States already has boots on the ground in a surprising number of African countries.


This map shows what sub-Saharan nations currently have a U.S. military presence engaged in actual military operations.


AFRICAtaylor.jpg


It should be noted that in most of these countries, there is a pretty small number of troops. But it is a clear sign of the U.S. Africa Command's increasingly broad position on the continent in what could be described as a growing shadow war against al-Qaeda affiliates and other militant groups. It also shows an increasingly blurred line between U.S. military operations and the CIA in Africa.
 
Always good to hear the latest from the tinfoil hat crowd!

Here's one from Huffington Post....a VERY Liberal and nationally recognized news hub. Are they wearing tinfoil hats also?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-engelhardt/the-us-military-pivot-to-africa_b_5881422.html

As American hysteria over events in the Middle East rises, news about whatever grim video the Islamic State (IS) has just released jostles for attention with U.S. bombing runs in Iraq, prospective ones in Syria, and endless confusing statements out of Washington about what the next seat-of-the-pants version of its strategy might be. These days, such things are endlessly on the American radar screen. On the other hand, the U.S. military has been moving into Africa big time for years and just about nobody seems to notice. The Pentagon's Africa Command (AFRICOM) now annually engages in one kind of activity or another with 49 of that continent's 54 countries. Yet Americans know next to nothing about Washington's "pivot" to a continent significant parts of which seem to be in a slow-motion process of destabilization that may be linked, at least in part, to U.S. military moves there.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-turse/problem-partners-ugly-outcomes_b_8118686.html

"Africa is a challenging place today and one that, if left unattended, is likely to be the birthplace of many more challenges in the future,” Army Secretary John McHugh said recently. Since 9/11, in fact, the continent has increasingly been viewed by the Pentagon as a place of problems to be remedied by military means. And year after year, as terror groups have multiplied, proxies have foundered, and allies have disappointed, the U.S. has doubled down again and again, with America’s most elite troops -- U.S. Special Operations forces (SOF) -- leading the way.

The public face of this engagement is a yearly training exercise called Flintlock. Since 2005, it has brought together U.S. special operators and elite European and West African troops to “strengthen security institutions, promote multilateral sharing of information, and develop interoperability among the partner nations of the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP).”
 
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announc...0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--


Washington (AFP) - US President Barack Obama will deploy up to 300 military personnel to Cameroon for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations against militant Boko Haram insurgents, he informed Congress on Wednesday.


In a letter released by the White House, Obama said 90 personnel had already been deployed, marking a modest but significant escalation of US involvement in the fight against the Islamic State-allied group.

Washington has largely shied away from engaging its vast military assets to combat Boko Haram, with policymakers wary of fueling militant recruitment or fusing the group's ties with Middle Eastern Islamists.
 
Don't you sometimes get tired of talking to yourself? There are therapies for your condition, I've been told.
I'm leaving these articles for you Ciggy. Please feel free to refute them. This was general information for all, but it seems like others agree.
 
Good. Not shocking that Obama is attacked for vanishing from the world stage and for secret military expansions at the same time. This isn't exactly a secret, and it's integral to foreign policy. The US needs the ability to get move troops and supplies throughout Africa. We should be helping to build a string of 5000 foot runways across the continent and looking for port facilities that can easily handle our ships.
As far as supporting distasteful regimes, we've been doing that for a long time. Let's not get squishy now, because the Chinese aren't and they are making strong inroads into Africa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
I don't think "invasion" means what you think it means.
Explain to me what a careful crafted expansion into a certain region is? Are you assuming an invasion has to mean overnight? Are you sure YOU know what invasion means?
 
Good. Not shocking that Obama is attacked for vanishing from the world stage and for secret military expansions at the same time. This isn't exactly a secret, and it's integral to foreign policy. The US needs the ability to get move troops and supplies throughout Africa. We should be helping to build a string of 5000 foot runways across the continent and looking for port facilities that can easily handle our ships.
As far as supporting distasteful regimes, we've been doing that for a long time. Let's not get squishy now, because the Chinese aren't and they are making strong inroads into Africa.
No one is saying that China isn't also doing this. As a matter of fact, the reason we are stepping up our operations is because China has done the same. But thank you for supporting the point of the OP. At least someone isn't afraid to admit it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemorialRedWarrior
;)

Correct....Africa isn't exactly a 'unifiable' territory to 'invade' and take over the continent.
Which is why they are carefully spreading through it. You aren't the type to see things from more than just one direction are you?

You do realize, that your statement only solidifies what I've said? I never said they were looking to or able to do this overnight.

Hence why i made a point, to show the slow and methodical nature of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemorialRedWarrior
You're right. If China or Russia "invaded" the USA like this, it would be fine, right?

Well, if the American states all divided and were run by warlords and terrorists, and China and Russia needed to send military assets to protect their embassies and citizens, and promote regional stability, then yeah, I guess I'd be cool with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Explain to me what a careful crafted expansion into a certain region is? Are you assuming an invasion has to mean overnight? Are you sure YOU know what invasion means?

Well, for one thing "invasion" implies we're there by force and uninvited. We're sending troops to protect our legal assets in the region.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Euphemisms abounding! We don't invade countries militarily... nooooo! We merely "send in our troops to protect our legal assets in the region." Magnificent!
 
Which is why they are carefully spreading through it. You aren't the type to see things from more than just one direction are you?

You do realize, that your statement only solidifies what I've said? I never said they were looking to or able to do this overnight.

Hence why i made a point, to show the slow and methodical nature of it.

This is news?

I have friends who were in Carrier groups who spent time in various US bases all over the world, including Africa, a decade or more ago. The US spreads its naval power all over, to ensure it has nearby bases anywhere it needs to consolidate forces.

I'm troubled by your claim that this is somehow 'new' or 'enlightening'; it's been US naval policy for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Always good to hear the latest from the tinfoil hat crowd!
Well duh.

What else were we supposed to do after the imperial take over of the Southwest during Jade Helm.

That went so well, it was only natural to do this as well.

Thanks for keeping us informed on all this completely true and accurate information!
 
Well, if the American states all divided and were run by warlords and terrorists, and China and Russia needed to send military assets to protect their embassies and citizens, and promote regional stability, then yeah, I guess I'd be cool with that.
Would you be a little bit angry though if you some of those warlords and terrorists were propped by us also? Are you just ignoring our history of aiding these types and then declaring them enemies in the future?
Saddam
Bin Laden
Shah
Gaddafi

...and the list goes on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
Well duh.

What else were we supposed to do after the imperial take over of the Southwest during Jade Helm.

That went so well, it was only natural to do this as well.

Thanks for keeping us informed on all this completely true and accurate information!
I'm not sure what you mean, are you refuting the OP's claims? Or the articles that are backing his claims? Are you an authority on this subject or are you simply having an opinion? Do you have anything to counter the articles presented? Or are you more informed than the writers at the LATimes, the NYTimes, or the Huffington Post?
If you have knowledge enough to speak against this, I would like to hear and see what it is that makes you so confident in your response.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT